00:00

Question 145·Hard·Cross-Text Connections

Text 1
Front-of-pack traffic-light nutrition labels help consumers triage choices quickly by reducing the effort required to parse dense panels. For measurable population-level change, the system must be standardized across brands and categories and placed uniformly so it becomes a habit to notice. Labels are inexpensive to implement and politically durable, but they are not a substitute for taxes or education; they are scaffolding that makes other policies more navigable. If a city later adopts a sugary-drink tax, labels guide shoppers toward lower-sugar alternatives rather than leaving them to simply pay more for the same products. Over time, as familiarity grows and manufacturers reformulate to avoid red warnings, the benefits of labeling can compound.

Text 2
In a quasi-experimental study of 12 metropolitan grocery chains, we compared beverage purchases 6 months before and 12 months after the introduction of front-of-pack sugar-warning labels. Relative to matched control markets without labels, labeled markets saw a 3% decline in per-capita purchases of high-sugar beverages. Published evaluations of penny-per-ounce soda taxes report first-year reductions of roughly 15%. We infer that taxation would be more effective than labeling for curbing sugary-drink consumption. During our study, however, labeling was voluntary: only 63% of eligible beverages carried labels, and label size and placement varied by brand, sometimes reducing salience. Despite these implementation caveats, the magnitude gap suggests taxes are preferable as a primary policy lever.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to the inference in Text 2 that taxation is preferable to labeling as the primary policy lever?